< previous page page_551 next page >

Page 551
Author's Note
Although scholarship in the past 30 years has redeemed King John as a king, not even Alan Lloyd in his Maligned Monarch (Doubleday: Garden City, N.Y., 1972)who makes a strong effortcan really explain away the evidence concerning John's unpleasant character. The fact that John was not a bad king in modern terms (in modern terms he was a far better king than Richard) is irrelevant. In terms of the period in which he lived, John was a despicable person, and Richard was a hero. It is hard for us now to understand because, by and large, the difference between the brothers turned upon the word "honor," a term which is not only obsolete at present but very nearly laughable.
Richard was a bad king. He was not only disinclined to the "business" of kingship but also extravagant in everything. He was far too generous in giving away crown property, thus impoverishing the throne and making it dependent upon taxation; he made extravagant vows, like taking the Cross, and fulfilled them to the political and financial detriment of his subjects; he was profligate in war, fighting everyone and anyone who would give him the opportunity. John was none of these things. He was efficient and attentive to the "business" of being a king; he reformed the courts, being very much interested in the law; he was more careful than ungenerous in rewarding those who served him; he fought only when war was forced upon him or when he could foresee a quick and easy victory.
In medieval terms, however, the characteristics we see as failings in Richard were considered virtues; although

 
< previous page page_551 next page >